Results 1 to 5 of 5

Nikon Macro Lenses

This is a discussion on Nikon Macro Lenses within the Camera equipment & accessories forums, part of the Education & Technical category; I'm looking at purchasing a macro lens for my D40. I've been looking at the 105mm 2.8 VR. I also ...

  1. #1
    SteveS is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    10
    My Photos
    Please feel free to edit my photos

    Default Nikon Macro Lenses

    I'm looking at purchasing a macro lens for my D40. I've been looking at the 105mm 2.8 VR. I also noticed that there is a 200mm.
    Does anybody have any suggestions as what to look for when buying a macro and has anyone had any experience with the above mentioned?

    Thanks
    Steve

  2. #2
    Marko's Avatar
    Marko is offline Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Montreal, QC. Canada
    Posts
    14,116
    My Photos
    Please do NOT edit my photos
    Critiques
    Critique my photos anywhere in the forum

    Default

    In terms of buying a macro - we'd first have to know what you want to photograph.....but I have experience with the 105 and it's great as both a portrait and a macro lens.

    The 200 has a great reputation but I've not tried it (yet) but I've had my eye on this lens for a while so I do know a bit i can share.

    The difference between the two will be:
    - The 200mm I think only works in manual with the cheaper Nikons and with AF only with the higher end models so be careful, the 105 will work on your D40
    -The 200mm will let you do macro at 1:1 FARTHER away from the subject. This makes the subject much easier to light.
    -The 200mm is heavier and heftier.
    -The 200mm is an F4 lens and not VR (vibration reduction) the 105 is a 2.8 (more or less and it has wobble play on the macro side) VR lens.
    -Last i looked the 105mm was around 850. and the 200mm 1700. or so. The 200mm is also hard to find...

    Hope that helps,

    marko
    Last edited by Marko; 04-08-2010 at 08:48 AM.
    - Please connect with me further
    Photo tours of Montreal - Private photography courses
    - Join the new Photography.ca Facebook page
    - Follow me on Twitter http://twitter.com/markokulik
    - Follow me on Google+ https://plus.google.com/u/0/111159185852360398018/posts
    - Check out the photography podcast


    "You have to milk the cow quite a lot, and get plenty of milk to get a little cheese." Henri Cartier-Bresson from The Decisive Moment.

  3. #3
    SteveS is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    10
    My Photos
    Please feel free to edit my photos

    Default

    Hi Marko

    I'll be doing mainly nature shots such as bugs, flowers etc.
    Your right! The 200 is tough to find. Its also a little higher priced than I'm willing to pay. I've been reading up on the 105 and it seems like it may the better choice for me.

    Steve

  4. #4
    Grant's Avatar
    Grant is offline Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Lunenburg, Nova Scotia
    Posts
    66
    My Photos
    Please do NOT edit my photos

    Default

    I shoot a fair amount with a 105 mm macro. My images are generally in the range of what you want to do. The 105 mm is a magnificent lens and it does put some distance between me and my subject. When I use my film camera I find it to be an ideal lens at an ideal distance. When I shoot digital (half frame) it is idea for small flowers but when I shoot a large flower I find myself so far back that often I am in an adjacent flower bed. The way I shoot the 200 mm would be way to much, I suspect I would have to step back to Toledo to photograph tulips Nova Scotia. If I was buying my first macro for a Ĺ frame dSLR I would consider the 60 mm as well as the 105 mm but not the 200, unless your wanted close ups of venomous snakes. Don’t forget on a Ĺ frame dSLR the 60 mm will behave more like a 90 mm and the 105 mm more like a 160 mm and the 200 mm will behave like a 300 mm. The 200 mm will give a lot of distance between you and your subject and a shallower DOF field for the same image size. Believe me there is not much DOF in macro and often you are scratching for it, something to consider.

    This is a Siberian Squill I shot a short while ago using a 105 mm macro.

    If you like my images I am very happy but please donít nominate them.

    Grant

    Home Pages : http://web.mac.com/
    Flickr : http://www.flickr.com/photos/Grant_Dixon

  5. #5
    Marko's Avatar
    Marko is offline Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Montreal, QC. Canada
    Posts
    14,116
    My Photos
    Please do NOT edit my photos
    Critiques
    Critique my photos anywhere in the forum

    Default

    Thanks for sharing that good info grant
    - Please connect with me further
    Photo tours of Montreal - Private photography courses
    - Join the new Photography.ca Facebook page
    - Follow me on Twitter http://twitter.com/markokulik
    - Follow me on Google+ https://plus.google.com/u/0/111159185852360398018/posts
    - Check out the photography podcast


    "You have to milk the cow quite a lot, and get plenty of milk to get a little cheese." Henri Cartier-Bresson from The Decisive Moment.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36